ACES vs FTGS
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs First Trust Growth Strength ETF
Quick Verdict
ACES has a lower expense ratio. ACES delivered stronger 1-year returns. FTGS offers more diversification with 50 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | FTGS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $109M | $1.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 0.09% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 51 | |
| YTD Return | -5.34% | +13.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +18.63% | +16.66% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -8.28% | +18.89% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -14.26% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.3% | 14.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -20.0% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Oct 25, 2022 |
ACES vs FTGS Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year ACES returned +18.63% while FTGS returned +16.66%. Year to date, ACES is down 5.34% versus a gain of 13.23% for FTGS.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -8.28% per year against +18.89% for FTGS. Across the full 4-year window we track, FTGS has the edge at +20.00% annualized vs +3.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.3% compared with 14.6% for FTGS. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.0% for ACES and -20.0% for FTGS. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while FTGS charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $60 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 1.22% against 0.09% for FTGS.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and FTGS share 0 holdings out of 87 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or FTGS?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while FTGS charges 0.60%. ACES is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or FTGS?
Over the past year ACES returned +18.63% vs +16.66% for FTGS, so ACES leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), ACES annualized +3.60% vs +20.00% for FTGS. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or FTGS?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.3% annualized versus 14.6% for FTGS. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs FTGS -20.0%.
Should I hold both ACES and FTGS?
ACES and FTGS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and FTGS?
ACES and FTGS share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 87 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or FTGS?
ACES yields 1.22% while FTGS yields 0.09%, so ACES currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.